The 10 Commandments are done away!

[Bob S]

Good luck with that one: there are too many contradictions in them to be able to do that. In the end Jesus' words will judge us on Judgement day (John 12:48) so let's just stick to making sure we walk in his words.

So very true. It is a very sad way to live without knowing the future and one cannot proclaim salvation because of the false Investigative Judgement.
John 5:24New International Version (NIV)
24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me HAS eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Claim the promise

 

[bugkiller]

Good luck with that one: there are too many contradictions in them to be able to do that. In the end Jesus' words will judge us on Judgement day (John 12:48) so let's just stick to making sure we walk in his words.

Sorry but I can't find any contradictions in Scripture.

As for Jn 12:48 you may speak for yourself.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

bugkiller

 

[2 know him]

Sorry but I can't find any contradictions in Scripture.

As for Jn 12:48 you may speak for yourself.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

bugkiller

By not embracing Jesus' words you do reject him: the words he spoke are spirit and life and by embracing his words you embrace him and thus his life.

As for contradictions, try reconciling Jesus' words with not executing judgement upon someone, and his statements which state that if you do, you will not be forgiven, with Paul's words which claim that those who kill others with swords are ministers of God (See Roman's 13:4). If it is wrong to judge (in particular casting stones to harm one for their sins) then how are those who execute vengeance with swords ministers of God and not violators of Christ's and thus God's commands on showing mercy; how are those who contravene God's commands, his ministers?

A government is a group of men with an army behind them, to enforce their rule and if it is wrong for one man to violate Christ's, and thus God's words, it is wrong for a group of men to violate the same.

This in not the only place in which Paul contradicted Jesus, there is a multitude more.

Our problem today is that men claim the bible is inspired by God (which some of it is and some isn't), but the church has historically not allowed objective discussion on the contradictions that exist in the bible and thus many people who have had pure intentions on trying to have some of the errors fixed, have eventually given up and been shut up.

History is filled with men who have spoken against Paul and the words he propagated against Jesus' teachings, here is a list I pulled off of 1 web page just now and if one looks, I am certain they will find hundreds more:
Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

• Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
  "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
  (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

• George Bernard Shaw :
  "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
  than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

• Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal theologian) :
  "Paul's words are not the Words of God.
  They are the words of Paul– a vast difference."
  (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
  p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

• Thomas Jefferson :
  "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
  ( from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
  The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

• Thomas Hardy (British writer):
  "The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

• Will Durant (Philosopher) :
  "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
  can be found in the words of Christ."
  Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
  & "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
  that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
  with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
  Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

• Bishop Polycarp One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
  (who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist)
  complained that neither he nor anyone "was able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

• Walter Kaufmann
  (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
  "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

• Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
  "My long–time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts–the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
  (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

• Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
  "As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so–called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
  Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell–tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
  " (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)
  

• Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher) :
  "If Christianity needed an Anti–Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." ( paraphrased. . . looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus"

• Source: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/+Believable/PaulvsAll.html

 

[bugkiller]

By not embracing Jesus' words you do reject him: the words he spoke are spirit and life and by embracing his words you embrace him and thus his life.

As for contradictions, try reconciling Jesus' words with not executing judgement upon someone, and his statements which state that if you do, you will not be forgiven, with Paul's words which claim that those who kill others with swords are ministers of God (See Roman's 13:4). If it is wrong to judge (in particular casting stones to harm one for their sins) then how are those who execute vengeance with swords ministers of God and not violators of Christ's and thus God's commands on showing mercy; how are those who contravene God's commands, his ministers?

A government is a group of men with an army behind them, to enforce their rule and if it is wrong for one man to violate Christ's, and thus God's words, it is wrong for a group of men to violate the same.

This in not the only place in which Paul contradicted Jesus, there is a multitude more.

Our problem today is that men claim the bible is inspired by God (which some of it is and some isn't), but the church has historically not allowed objective discussion on the contradictions that exist in the bible and thus many people who have had pure intentions on trying to have some of the errors fixed, have eventually given up and been shut up.

History is filled with men who have spoken against Paul and the words he propagated against Jesus' teachings, here is a list I pulled off of 1 web page just now and if one looks, I am certain they will find hundreds more:
Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

• Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
  "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
  (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

• George Bernard Shaw :
  "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
  than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

• Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal theologian) :
  "Paul's words are not the Words of God.
  They are the words of Paul– a vast difference."
  (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
  p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

• Thomas Jefferson :
  "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
  ( from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
  The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

• Thomas Hardy (British writer):
  "The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

• Will Durant (Philosopher) :
  "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
  can be found in the words of Christ."
  Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
  & "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
  that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
  with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
  Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

• Bishop Polycarp One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
  (who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist)
  complained that neither he nor anyone "was able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

• Walter Kaufmann
  (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
  "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

• Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
  "My long–time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts–the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
  (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

• Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
  "As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so–called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
  Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell–tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
  " (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

• Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher) :
  "If Christianity needed an Anti–Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." ( paraphrased. . . looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus"

• Source: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/+Believable/PaulvsAll.html

I'm sorry but you need to show me by quote exactly what words of Jesus I fail to embrace.

Next I have no idea how you can be so opposed to Paul and be a Christian because such is rejection of what we call the Scripture (Holy Writ).

bugkiller

 

[Bob S]

By not embracing Jesus' words you do reject him: the words he spoke are spirit and life and by embracing his words you embrace him and thus his life.

As for contradictions, try reconciling Jesus' words with not executing judgement upon someone, and his statements which state that if you do, you will not be forgiven, with Paul's words which claim that those who kill others with swords are ministers of God (See Roman's 13:4). If it is wrong to judge (in particular casting stones to harm one for their sins) then how are those who execute vengeance with swords ministers of God and not violators of Christ's and thus God's commands on showing mercy; how are those who contravene God's commands, his ministers?

A government is a group of men with an army behind them, to enforce their rule and if it is wrong for one man to violate Christ's, and thus God's words, it is wrong for a group of men to violate the same.

This in not the only place in which Paul contradicted Jesus, there is a multitude more.

Our problem today is that men claim the bible is inspired by God (which some of it is and some isn't), but the church has historically not allowed objective discussion on the contradictions that exist in the bible and thus many people who have had pure intentions on trying to have some of the errors fixed, have eventually given up and been shut up.

History is filled with men who have spoken against Paul and the words he propagated against Jesus' teachings, here is a list I pulled off of 1 web page just now and if one looks, I am certain they will find hundreds more:
Albert Schweitzer :
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."

• Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
  "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
  (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)

• George Bernard Shaw :
  "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition
  than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

• Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal theologian) :
  "Paul's words are not the Words of God.
  They are the words of Paul– a vast difference."
  (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
  p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

• Thomas Jefferson :
  "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
  ( from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
  The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)

• Thomas Hardy (British writer):
  "The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

• Will Durant (Philosopher) :
  "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
  can be found in the words of Christ."
  Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
  & "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus, a man
  that he did not even know 50 or more years after the death of Jesus,
  with complete disregards for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
  Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".

• Bishop Polycarp One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
  (who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from John the evangelist)
  complained that neither he nor anyone "was able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."

• Walter Kaufmann
  (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
  "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."

• Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
  "My long–time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts–the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
  (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

• Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) :
  "As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so–called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome.
  Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell–tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation.
  " (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)

• Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher) :
  "If Christianity needed an Anti–Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." ( paraphrased. . . looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus"

• Source: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/+Believable/PaulvsAll.html

Quoting other men to prove a belief system is a dangerous effort. I suppose I could find a thousand atheists to quote, but what Christian grounded in Jesus love would pay any attention. Either we believe Jesus is God and is able to keep the scriptures as the Holy Writ or we start chipping away at everything we conjure in our minds.

Remember Jesus lived and taught under the law. He taught from the Old Testament to those under the laws of the OT.
we can recognize Jesus preparing His followers for the changes that would come after His death on the Cross. Never before had God told His followers to go into all the World and preach the Gospel to all nations. Paul was taught by Jesus to preach Grace, the New Covenant. Why would Paul teach the law that was abrogated and other things Jesus taught. Judaism was a thing of the past, history. Soon the Temple would be destroyed and Jews would scatter all over the World. The promised land that was the promise of the old covenant was negated when Israel failed to keep their end of the covenant.

By the way, what did Paul teach that you would consider heresy?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Happy Sabbath Bob et al....

 

[2 know him]

I'm sorry but you need to show me by quote exactly what words of Jesus I fail to embrace.

Next I have no idea how you can be so opposed to Paul and be a Christian because such is rejection of what we call the Scripture (Holy Writ).

bugkiller

I wasn't saying you weren't embracing Christ only speaking of us embracing or failing to embrace Christ by obedience or a lack thereof.

Just because the church at large believes Paul's words inspired, doesn't mean they are. It was during the Council of Carthage that the 66 books that currently go in to making up the bible were forged, but how do we claim these 66 books are God's words? The fact that Paul clearly spoke against Jesus' words and that there is absolutely no way to reconcile Paul's words to Jesus' words, means one must reject Paul or Jesus' words as inspired and I choose to reject Paul's: while many have chosen rather to reject Jesus'.

 

[bugkiller]

I wasn't saying you weren't embracing Christ only speaking of us embracing or failing to embrace Christ by obedience or a lack thereof.

Just because the church at large believes Paul's words inspired, doesn't mean they are. It was during the Council of Carthage that the 66 books that currently go in to making up the bible were forged, but how do we claim these 66 books are God's words? The fact that Paul clearly spoke against Jesus' words and that there is absolutely no way to reconcile Paul's words to Jesus' words, means one must reject Paul or Jesus' words as inspired and I choose to reject Paul's: while many have chosen rather to reject Jesus'.

OK so you don't believe what most Christians call the Scripture.

I'll ask once again what words of Christ do you think I'm not embracing? What words of Christ do you think I'm failing to obey?

bugkiller

 

[Bob S]

Why must it be what you claim above? Maybe I think that men forged the book we called the holy bible (holy book) and God spoke to and through Christ and that men happened to put Christ's words in a book of prophetic scriptures and Paul's words. But what if I put Joseph Smith's words, with Jesus words and the prophetic scriptures, in a new book and called it the Holiest Book: would that make it inspired of God? Jesus said: many will come and say "we have done many wonderful Miracles in your name" and he will say depart; so what makes Paul's words inspired of God: when they contradict Jesus' words on so many levels? Jesus taught us to love our neighbors with equality (love your neighbor as yourself); Paul condoned slavery and defines how slaves should subordinate to their master's. Jesus said to testify against Kings governors: Paul testifies for them. Jesus said forgive and you will be forgiven, Judge and you will be Judged; Paul condones men not forgiving, and executing judgement upon others with swords and even claims those who kill others are ministers of God. If Jesus is the KING of kings: then the rule of earthly kings must subordinate to the authority of Christ, or Christ is not the King of kings. Which is it?

Either Paul's words were inspired of God and Jesus' uninspired, or it was the other way around. Do you support men killing others for their sins? Who do you follow: Paul or Christ? You cannot serve two masters; forgive and you will be forgiven: judge and you will be judged. Again I ask: do you support men killing others for their sins? Were Paul's or Jesus' words inspired by God, because both definitely cannot be. Paul gives an exemption for men to disobey Christ and contravene the words of Christ. Jesus said the Father gave him a commandment, of what he should say and what he should speak and that his commandment is life everlasting. Is it okay to speak against Jesus' words?

When Satan offered Jesus to rule all the governments of the world, Jesus said God alone is to be served: not Satan and his governments. Governments are men controlling men by force. if I controlled you by force: you would know I was evil, but a group of men do it, with an army behind them and you feel helpless; is controlling others by force really of God, or of Satan? If it is of God, give me your address and I'll be right over: as I want to obey God. Yes I am being sarcastic, but Paul was wrong in saying what he said and his words were not inspired of God, but of Satan: as Satan is the Father of lies.

Do you have the right to speak against the teachings of Jesus? Of course not, so what makes you think Paul does: because men claim his words are inspired of God? Men are wrong and so was Paul: his words were not of God.

2Timothy 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me"...

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Join the churches of Asia in turning form Paul but remaining obedient to Christ and you too will find vindication from God.

Revelations 2:2 "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars".

In light of 2Timothy 1:15, this verse in Revelations 2:2 is clearly vindicating the Ephesians for forsaking Paul.

And I will ask you to show where Paul disregards the words of Jesus. I ask you where Jesus ever spoke out against slavery.
Paul didn't condone slavery. He didn't own slaves and it was not his mission to have them released. Where does Paul testify for kings? Where does Paul condone men not forgiving, and execute judgement upon others with swords and even claims those who kill others are ministers of God?

No my brother Paul was not perfect and we know that we are all needful of much of our Redeemers blood to cover for the acts we commit, but to write that Paul was an anti Christ is pure heresy. If we would have to wait until we become perfect to be able to write and preach the Gospel it would never be preached or written about. Think about that for a while. You have made a lot of bold comments, but have not come up with any of Paul's writings vs Jesus words so that we can compare and believe your premises. As the old cliche says, "put your money where your mouth is". Don't just write in generalities, give us some meat.

 

[2 know him]

And I will ask you to show where Paul disregards the words of Jesus. I ask you where Jesus ever spoke out against slavery.
Paul didn't condone slavery. He didn't own slaves and it was not his mission to have them released. Where does Paul testify for kings? Where does Paul condone men not forgiving, and execute judgement upon others with swords and even claims those who kill others are ministers of God?

No my brother Paul was not perfect and we know that we are all needful of much of our Redeemers blood to cover for the acts we commit, but to write that Paul was an anti Christ is pure heresy. If we would have to wait until we become perfect to be able to write and preach the Gospel it would never be preached or written about. Think about that for a while. You have made a lot of bold comments, but have not come up with any of Paul's writings vs Jesus words so that we can compare and believe your premises. As the old cliche says, "put your money where your mouth is". Don't just write in generalities, give us some meat.

Jesus used slavery as an example of our relationship to God, but his statements of loving your neighbour as yourself, absolutely speak against slavery, as you can only love your neighbour with equality if you are their equals. This belief was so practiced by the Church in Act's (before the great persecution drove the early church out of Jerusalem) that they sold all their goods and shared them equally.

As for were Paul condoned men killing men with swords, the answer is here:

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

What else do you do with swords that can be said to execute wrath upon men, besides harm and kill them? Jesus condemned men retaliating with evil for evil and killing others in his teachings: or do you question this also?

 

[2 know him]

OK so you don't believe what most Christians call the Scripture.

I'll ask once again what words of Christ do you think I'm not embracing? What words of Christ do you think I'm failing to obey?

bugkiller

What I was saying was that Jesus was making the statement that you reject him by receiving not his words, they are not 2 separate parts, but rather the statement is one whole in meaning: he that rejects Christ does so by not adhering to his words; you cannot accept Christ, and reject his words: is the point I was originally making.

 

[bugkiller]

What I was saying was that Jesus was making the statement that you reject him by receiving not his words, they are not 2 separate parts, but rather the statement is one whole in meaning: he that rejects Christ does so by not adhering to his words; you cannot accept Christ, and reject his words: is the point I was originally making.

I would really appreciate it very much if you would read only what I said and respond to that.

Do I need to repeat my question of what words of Jesus do you think I reject?

bugkiller

 

[Bob S]

Jesus used slavery as an example of our relationship to God, but his statements of loving your neighbour as yourself, absolutely speak against slavery, as you can only love your neighbour with equality if you are their equals. This belief was so practiced by the Church in Act's (before the great persecution drove the early church out of Jerusalem) that they sold all their goods and shared them equally.

That is a real s t r e a c h if I have ever seen one.Jesus didn't speak out against slavery and neither did any of the contributors to the Bible. Come on and give me some meat to chew on. Why should I reject the writings of Paul?

As for were Paul condoned men killing men with swords, the answer is here:

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

What else do you do with swords that can be said to execute wrath upon men, besides harm and kill them? Jesus condemned men retaliating with evil for evil and killing others in his teachings: or do you question this also?

Maybe you should read a version of the Bible that is easier to understand my friend.

Romans 13:4New International Version (NIV)
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

You have falsely accused Paul of committing something he didn't write. It was the law of the land to hunt evildoers not Paul's law. He only made a true statement. Police carry guns to kill evildoers today. Do you believe they are also anti Christ?

Is that all you can dig up that you think makes Paul an anti Christ? Again, I ask, where is the meat. Why should we reject the writings of Paul?

 

[Bob S]

What I was saying was that Jesus was making the statement that you reject him by receiving not his words, they are not 2 separate parts, but rather the statement is one whole in meaning: he that rejects Christ does so by not adhering to his words; you cannot accept Christ, and reject his words: is the point I was originally making.

What "words" of Jesus are we rejecting? Come on, give us some meat to chew on. Generalities do not count when debating.

 

[Leroy D]

Didn't see there was more to the thread....need to read some more before I get into this....

 

[Sophrosyne]

Didn't see there was more to the thread....need to read some more before I get into this....

Read away.... there are plenty of other thread with about the same information in it as this one over the last 5 years as the folks pushing this stuff on Christians have been evangelizing here for a long time.

 

[Bob S]

This is my first post ever on this forum, so be nice and love me as you claim is the law. Before you call me a "law thumper", that does not seem very loving.

Hi Leroy, welcome to the forum. I see that you have read at least one of my posts. I love "law thumpers" with all my heart. I wish for you eternal life and all the happiness this life brings. I suppose I could use another term for those who cling to the laws given only to the Israelites Deut 5:3Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. Need I elaborate more? Okay, just one more thought. I believe in all scripture and am truly a Bible thumper and very thrilled to have become one. If you are a believer in the old covenant law and proselytize such then why not be proud to be called a law thumper?

This is my belief: I believe that 95% or more of everything we have ever been told is a lie. There is only one truth and that truth is contained in God's holy word.

We deal with some SDAs on the forum and they also have the writings of one E.G. White as being equally holy. Your statement tells me that you are not SDA. Am I wrong?

This thread started with this statement (in part): "It never ceases to amaze me how people don't read the bible...."

I would say that it never ceases to amaze me how so many people can read the same thing and get different meanings.

Perhaps you can tell me how the following is of no effect, because I really want to know.

There are so many more verses that could be placed here, but these are a start.

Do we believe Jesus?
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Absolutely I believe Jesus. First of all we must acknowledge that Jesus was under the old covenant speaking to those who were under the same law. Gentiles never had the laws that the Jews were under. If we can understand that then it is much easier to understand the new covenant. Those who do not believe that "all has been fulfilled" and believe we must keep the 10 commandments are under obligation to observe all the Torah. Not one jot... Do you believe we must do sacrificial offerings? You may say that the system for sacrifice was destroyed. That is no excuse if you believe not one jot...

Either Jesus fulfilled the law and we are not subject to it or we are subject to all of the law. Not one jot... will pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled. Pretty understandable isn't it?

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Same issue, Jesus was under the law addressing those under the law. He had not made the final sacrifice for all humanity yet. Grace through faith had not yet become a reality. Jesus was teaching under the old covenant because that was where they were, Jews were under the old covenant.

Do we believe John?
1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

John the beautiful writer of love, I love to read John's thoughts. I can't wait to meet him in person and thank him for the wonderful scripture he provided us.

Do you have any idea what John meant by not keeping his commandments? You must think John was referring to the Torah law. When people see the word commandments they immediately put a 10 in front of the word. That my friend is a misnomer. Have you studied 1John and read the explanation for commandments John provides in 1Jn 3:19? This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.:

Paul so eloquently wrote in 2Cor 3: 7-11 these words:
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, (10 commandments) came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (the Holy Spirit)

Do you see it? Paul is telling us we are not under the 10 cs. The Holy Spirit is the Christian's guide. The law was the Israelites guide and that law was fulfilled at the Cross . John then goes on to tell us we are not lawless when we believe and follow Jesus because we are under the Royal law of love. Love others as I have love you. That love surpasses all of the old covenant laws.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Once again you want to put a 10 where there is none. Jesus command for Christians is to love. I don't read where He commanded people to observe rituals except the Lord's supper.

Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. (The ark housed the 10 commandments on earth and it is either in heaven or there is a original in heaven and I'm guessing the 10 are there.)

Yep, I can only guess too. Is the "better" covenant in the ark or is it the covenant given only to Israel? My guess is that it is not the covenant that brought death, the one Paul was directed to write about, it is the covenant of pure love that we Christians are under.

Logic:
If there is no law, there can be no transgression of the law. Sin is transgression of the law, therefore, "If there is no law, there is no sin." Jesus came to (along with other things) pay the penalty for our sin, not do away with the law.

Question: who has said there is no law? He paid the penalty all the while ushering in the law of love and the covenant of grace. Remember if you insist on living under the old law minus no jots or tittles you will be judged by that law. If you live and give your heart to Jesus, believe in Him you won't even be judged. Jn 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

And, you are right, Jesus made the law more complex...if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart, you commit adultery.

Did I say the law of love is more "complex"? If I did I meant to say it is more complete. In fact it is completely complete.

Thanks for reading my post. I pray you have a better understanding on what I truly believe Jesus, through the Bible , is telling us. I await your comments. In Christ, bob

 

[bugkiller]

Didn't see there was more to the thread....need to read some more before I get into this....

I didn't see this was an edit. I'm curious after reading more posts. Are you and SDA per chance? If you are why aren't you using that designation of faith? This forum says SDA are Christian.

bugkiller

 

[Leroy D]

I didn't see this was an edit. I'm curious after reading more posts. Are you and SDA per chance? If you are why aren't you using that designation of faith? This forum says SDA are Christian.

bugkiller

No, I'm not an SDA or a "member" of any "religious" order.

 

[Leroy D]

Bob S: You were VERY quick on the draw, as I edited my original post to basically nothing. I don't know if this is a place/forum I desire to be part of based on what I've read so far. There are some good viewpoints, but there is name calling and other behavior that in my opinion is unnecessary and beneath the Christian spirit.

One of the reasons evil abounds is because we, the supposed body of Christ, can not come together. How many different Christian denominations exist? I heard a long time ago, it was over 600, but it is probably over 2000 by now. Satan is laughing his way to the end time, he must do nothing to hinder the body of Christ but let them smack each other around and not find the straight gate.

We deal with some SDAs on the forum and they also have the writings of one E.G. White as being equally holy. Your statement tells me that you are not SDA. Am I wrong?

I do not claim to be a SDA.

Absolutely I believe Jesus.

That is wonderful, first hurdle dodged. Actually nobody on this thread, so far, has said that Jesus was just a prophet or less than the son of the Creator.

First of all we must acknowledge that Jesus was under the old covenant speaking to those who were under the same law. Gentiles never had the laws that the Jews were under. If we can understand that then it is much easier to understand the new covenant.

While I said, "Before you call me a 'law thumper'", I did not say what law I believed we were under. I believe the bible is not a book of religion, but a book of law. While the 10 commandments were indeed included in the Mosaic law, I believe it is a distinct law, separate but also included in the Mosaic law. You probably know that the United States has 50 different titles within "the law". Each of those titles were enacted at different times and and can also be abolished individually or together at different times or at the same time.

Those who do not believe that "all has been fulfilled" and believe we must keep the 10 commandments are under obligation to observe all the Torah. Not one jot... Do you believe we must do sacrificial offerings? You may say that the system for sacrifice was destroyed. That is no excuse if you believe not one jot...

You have no idea what I believe and suggest what I believe before I have communicated a belief. This is one of the reasons I do not know if I would stay on this or any forum. I can tell you that I believe that blood must be shed for remission of sin, because life is in the blood, a life for a life. Jesus was perfect and his sacrifice sufficient for you, me and everyone that believes on him.

IF (and I know, for that is a HUGE MONSTROUS if) there were at least two laws and one of them was forever and ever and not just for the Hebrews, and one of them was the Mosac law, then the not one jot... could have applied to the Creators perfect law. So, before I write a book on this thread, will you open your heart and mind to there possibly being at least two separate laws, 10 Cs and Mosaic, where the Mosaic included the 10Cs? (I believe the Mosaic law can be split into 50 different titles of law, BTW).

What if the contradictions that supposedly exist could be wiped out because of the 2 law scenario? What if many could be called and many could be chosen? What if we knew what the straight gate was? Maybe you know all these things and more and can teach me (and I'm not being rude, obnoxious, or shining you on ... intentionally)?

I intentionally ignored the rest of your post until we have some...agreement that we will be civil and are open to each other's opinion and not interested in just hearing our own opinion.

If there is no possibility of a "real" interaction, them we waste our time. The one thing I do not want is some other guys, preachers, ministers, cardinals, priests interpretation or opinion. How did you arrive at your belief and what backs it up? Because 95% of everything is a lie, I rely on inspiration from the Holy Spirit and logic. There are some issues with not being present at the time and knowing every thing about that time. It is possible you studied that, but again...95%.....

And, I'm open to the possibility of the super simple "Just Believe" philosophy. There are versus that must be overcome before that can be believed.

With love in Christ,

Leroy